Already have, many times.  But you know this already.

Too fatty.

Good thing I'm not an ex-con then, huh?

Oh?  I will be in FoCo in a month or two, I expect flowers and a box of chocolates.  Dinner at Jax is suitable, unless you want something more upscale.

I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on Smiley

Charles, I think the tea party analogy is an interesting one. Obviously I wasn't there. But perhaps you can see that your analogy is invertible. There are plenty of libertarians that are doing productive and useful stuff with Bitcoin, but there are also a people who are trying to essentially hijack Bitcoin and make it linked in peoples minds with their own agenda. You can see it in these endless threads where some of them claim Bitcoin is inherently anti-government and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". They just can't or won't mentally separate the two things.

This is the root cause of the desire to keep Bitcoin and bitcoin.org apolitical, which is something there's a lot of support for. The problem is how to actually do that. A wiki page won't work. Wiki pages on controversial topics just turn into exhausting edit wars in which the final result is decided by who has the most time and zealot-like dedication. That's not a way to achieve an apolitical result, as we learned the hard way with the Trade page.

We could just delete anything that some random forum poster finds controversial. That won't work either. Some people genuinely believe Bitcoin shouldn't have a website at all. Maybe one day that'll be the case (hopefully!), just like how the dollar doesn't have a website, but we're far from that state.

We can rename stuff so it seems less "official", but there's already a very obvious disclaimer on the website saying that the people there aren't official or spokespeople of any kind.

We could just abandon the entire concept of a press center, but there are reasons it was created (oddly, nobody found it controversial when I first proposed it here in this forum). Mostly that a lot of the coverage Bitcoin got was really clueless or riddled with basic errors, and could have benefited from people who knew what they were talking about being involved. It'd suck to give up on trying to fix that.

So we're left with the worst solution except for all the others - have some kind of process for submitting changes, and look for alternatives in cases where there's controversy or people who have a long track record of contribution would be uncomfortable. In this case there are plenty of people who nobody really disagrees on, so there are lots of alternatives available.

Charles, I think the tea party analogy is an interesting one. Obviously I wasn't there. But perhaps you can see that your analogy is invertible. There are plenty of libertarians that are doing productive and useful stuff with Bitcoin, but there are also a people who are trying to essentially hijack Bitcoin and make it linked in peoples minds with their own agenda. You can see it in these endless threads where some of them claim Bitcoin is inherently anti-government and anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it". They just can't or won't mentally separate the two things.